Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV14500, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14500    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 21, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Michelle Xiumei Wang

Responding Party: Defendant Rachel Juai Ching Shui

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED. THE ACTION IS STAYED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff Michelle Xiumei Wang sued Defendant Rachel Juai Ching Shui for (1) breach of lease; (2) unlawful eviction; and (3) UCL violations.

ANALYSIS

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….”  (CCP § 1281.2.)  The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.   (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).)  “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

A.        Existence of Arbitration Agreement and Applicable Law

Plaintiff moves to compel arbitration based on paragraph 35B of the Lease executed by the parties on May 10, 2019. (Decl. Wang, Exh. A.) The agreement provides, “Tenant and Landlord agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration …” (Id.) This action arises from the Lease agreement.

Plaintiff has met their burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Defendant to establish any defenses to enforcement.

B. Enforceability of Agreement

            Defendant asserts that the agreement is unenforceable because Plaintiff has waived the right to arbitrate under CCP § 1281.5. CCP § 1281.5 applies in cases involving enforcement of a claim of lien; it does not apply here.

Defendant also notes that it has filed a cross-complaint against third parties not bound by the arbitration agreement. The Court finds that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2(c) have not been met. Plaintiff represents that Cross-Defendants are willing to stipulate to arbitration; alternatively, the action could be stayed against the Cross-Defendants pending the arbitration. Defendant has not shown the possibility of conflicting rulings.

Defendant has failed to establish any defenses to enforcement. Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is STAYED.